Cheers - seems there are multiple things I could have done. I would rather avoid having to do a reprint, but it may be necessary.
Upon closer inspection, I think the geometry of the bottom part is designed in such as way that it comes out with a lot of cavities (it is slanted, requiring multiple steps). It could be that it will be very difficult print properly to begin with.
I personally would not consider superglue harmful enough to worry about plants seeping enough of it to affect the health of me eating the plant, and it’s not food grade. I’ve used it to fix cracked humidifier reservoirs in a greenhouse for example.
I would want to avoid something that leeches off into the water. That said, I am going to dilute it quite a lot since the stuff will be very concentrated. Super glue could be a little expensive for this though? I think coating the whole bed would take multiple small containers.
That being said, most epoxy resin dries food grade. I don’t think you’d have to search hard for a very well performing Resin with food grade search term swapped with dining surface or some frequent use that requires food grade.
I know very little about epoxy resin, but that is what I often see - but is it really basically the same stuff that is used to repair boats as people use for decorations? The safety data sheets for the components are always pretty rough, but they of course say nothing about the cured state.
Oh, that is an interesting idea that I hadn't thought of. I might be able to buy it from a local beeskeeper, and I think I have a small amount lying around somewhere I could test with.
I am using PrusaSlicer. Not sure if that check box is present in that, or if it was added in OrcaSlicer or BambuSlicer.
I might've printed with only two walls, I will need to check tomorrow when I'm at the correct machine. And thanks for the video recommendation, I will be sure to check it out!
Didn't think of aquariums. Would assume this should be food safe, since it will be in contact with environment of living things. Would you happen to know whether it has any good adhesion to PETG?
I might've printed with only two. But I'd like to avoid having to reprint, if possible, and instead fix it with some post-processing. I think the leakage is actually concentrated on certain points near the front leg slot, so it does not seem to generally seep through the entire bed.
The watt is always power, not energy. I'm assuming OP here got some prepositions mixed up and meant 1 kW delivered for 1 hr. That amounts to an energy of 1 kWh.
The second is like hell hole, tons of energy but still only a little bit of power.” No. They are both precisely the same energy.
No, they are the same power. The energy in the case where 1 kW of power is delivered for 1 hour is 1 kWh. The energy in the case of 1 kW delivered for 1 s is about 0.28 Wh.
If instead 1 kWh was transferred over the course of 1 hour, that is an average power of 1 kW (but does not have to be uniform, without more information we can't know the power profile). If 1 kWh is transferred over the course of 1 s, that is an average power of 3.6 MW which is the example I think OP was getting at (ref. hell hole comment).
This is more accurate than you would think. I've seen people synthesize a new inorganic compound, and is then more or less forced by supervisors to test it as an intercalation host for Li- or Na-ion batteries without really having thought through whether that makes sense at all.
Li is small, and as long as there is room for it (sites for it to sit when intercalated and paths to diffuse through the material), and there is some species that can accommodate the additional charge (as one Li+ is introduced into the material, there needs to be a charge compensation to maintain charge neutrality - typically this is a transition metal cation that is reduced from a higher oxidation state to a lower one). In that sense a lot of materials could serve as hosts, and depending on the intercalation potential, it could be used as a cathode (LiCoO2 for instance, where the intercalation potential vs. Li/Li+ is so high that it makes for a good cathode) or an anode (LTO for instance, where the intercalation potential vs. Li/Li+ is so low that it rather makes sense to pair it with a high potential cathode, and instead make for a more niche application where things such as safety is more coveted). That said, only three structure types have been widely used commercially as intercalation hosts for Li-ion batteries: layered rocksalt types (like LiCoO2 and its deriviates, NMC and NCA), spinels (LiMn2O4 or LTO) or olivines (LiFePO4, or LFP).
Li-S is not someone randomly mixing Li with some other elements though, it has been researched for a long time and is considered one of several "holy grails"
In this case, C refers to the current rate, not the unit Coulomb. It is a standard way of giving the current rate in battery research, and 1C is defined, as oldfart says, as the current rate required to charge that particular battery fully (to its nominal capacity) in one hour. 2C is twice this, so it is charged in half an hour, and C/2 is half this, so it is charged in two hours.
It is a convenient way of giving the current rate, because it allows a more application focused comparison (i.e. my EV battery or phone battery should be able to charge fully in one hour), but it hides the actual capacity of the battery (you have no way of knowing, without additional information, if the cell has a small or a large capacity).
ETA: The last point here is what deranger and AwesomeLowlander is getting at. You can have a very small battery with very little active material, and charge that at 10C and achieve reversible cycling for many, many cycles, and it is meaningless if it cannot be scaled to a larger cell (unless we are only considering microbatteries for example). Usually, results at a small scale is not directly transferable to larger scale, and you encounter all kinds of challenges as you scale up.
Cheers - seems there are multiple things I could have done. I would rather avoid having to do a reprint, but it may be necessary.
Upon closer inspection, I think the geometry of the bottom part is designed in such as way that it comes out with a lot of cavities (it is slanted, requiring multiple steps). It could be that it will be very difficult print properly to begin with.